Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in the schema: the per-call cost ($0.004 USDC via x402). It still omits result volume behavior, whether the call is billable on failure, and any auth/payment flow details beyond naming the protocol.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the data-source/field list is front-loaded ahead of the pricing note. It is efficient, though the pricing sentence reads as an aside rather than part of a coherent usage picture.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the enumerated return fields partly compensate for the missing output schema. But the absence of any usage guidance or explanation of how q, naf, limite and departement interact leaves the definition only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (q, naf, limite, departement) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering syntax, combination rules, or default behavior beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (official French company data from SIRENE/RNE) and enumerates returned fields, so an agent can tell what data it concerns. However, it never states the operation itself (search/lookup by name, SIREN or SIRET), so the verb is left to inference from the tool name rather than the prose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (agora_counterparty_check, agora_supplier_audit, agora_verify_deliverable), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must guess whether company lookup is the right entry point for a given task.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.